Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2141 | control, N = 1061 | treatment, N = 1081 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 212 | 51.21 ± 12.94 (23 - 75) | 50.47 ± 13.22 (23 - 75) | 51.93 ± 12.68 (28 - 73) | 0.413 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 214 | 0.557 | |||
f | 173 (81%) | 84 (79%) | 89 (82%) | ||
m | 41 (19%) | 22 (21%) | 19 (18%) | ||
occupation | 214 | 0.847 | |||
day_training | 5 (2.3%) | 2 (1.9%) | 3 (2.8%) | ||
full_time | 24 (11%) | 12 (11%) | 12 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 30 (14%) | 14 (13%) | 16 (15%) | ||
other | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
part_time | 40 (19%) | 22 (21%) | 18 (17%) | ||
retired | 51 (24%) | 23 (22%) | 28 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 4 (3.7%) | ||
shelter | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 3 (1.4%) | 2 (1.9%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
unemploy | 48 (22%) | 26 (25%) | 22 (20%) | ||
marital | 214 | 0.981 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
divore | 24 (11%) | 13 (12%) | 11 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
married | 68 (32%) | 32 (30%) | 36 (33%) | ||
none | 99 (46%) | 50 (47%) | 49 (45%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.4%) | 2 (1.9%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
widow | 15 (7.0%) | 7 (6.6%) | 8 (7.4%) | ||
edu | 214 | 0.538 | |||
bachelor | 47 (22%) | 20 (19%) | 27 (25%) | ||
diploma | 37 (17%) | 23 (22%) | 14 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.3%) | 4 (3.8%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (7.0%) | 8 (7.5%) | 7 (6.5%) | ||
primary | 18 (8.4%) | 8 (7.5%) | 10 (9.3%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 25 (12%) | 13 (12%) | 12 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 57 (27%) | 26 (25%) | 31 (29%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 10 (4.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 6 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 214 | 0.851 | |||
10001_12000 | 7 (3.3%) | 2 (1.9%) | 5 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (5.1%) | 4 (3.8%) | 7 (6.5%) | ||
14001_16000 | 10 (4.7%) | 4 (3.8%) | 6 (5.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.3%) | 3 (2.8%) | 2 (1.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.7%) | 7 (6.6%) | 3 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 37 (17%) | 21 (20%) | 16 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 32 (15%) | 15 (14%) | 17 (16%) | ||
4001_6000 | 27 (13%) | 12 (11%) | 15 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 20 (9.3%) | 11 (10%) | 9 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 17 (7.9%) | 9 (8.5%) | 8 (7.4%) | ||
below_2000 | 38 (18%) | 18 (17%) | 20 (19%) | ||
medication | 214 | 191 (89%) | 94 (89%) | 97 (90%) | 0.789 |
onset_duration | 212 | 15.40 ± 10.90 (0 - 63) | 15.12 ± 10.99 (0 - 56) | 15.68 ± 10.86 (0 - 63) | 0.709 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 210 | 35.91 ± 14.59 (-18 - 72) | 35.25 ± 12.96 (10 - 67) | 36.56 ± 16.06 (-18 - 72) | 0.517 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2141 | control, N = 1061 | treatment, N = 1081 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 214 | 3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.968 |
recovery_stage_b | 214 | 17.91 ± 2.82 (8 - 24) | 18.05 ± 2.88 (8 - 24) | 17.78 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.486 |
ras_confidence | 214 | 29.77 ± 5.41 (9 - 45) | 29.57 ± 5.31 (14 - 42) | 29.96 ± 5.52 (9 - 45) | 0.593 |
ras_willingness | 214 | 11.64 ± 2.10 (3 - 15) | 11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.21 (3 - 15) | 0.839 |
ras_goal | 214 | 17.35 ± 3.25 (5 - 25) | 17.19 ± 3.17 (7 - 25) | 17.51 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.472 |
ras_reliance | 214 | 13.18 ± 2.87 (4 - 20) | 13.03 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.94 (4 - 20) | 0.438 |
ras_domination | 214 | 9.80 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 10.01 ± 2.40 (3 - 15) | 9.59 ± 2.39 (3 - 15) | 0.204 |
symptom | 214 | 30.28 ± 9.28 (14 - 56) | 30.28 ± 9.44 (14 - 55) | 30.28 ± 9.16 (14 - 56) | 0.997 |
slof_work | 214 | 22.17 ± 4.75 (10 - 30) | 22.30 ± 4.42 (12 - 30) | 22.05 ± 5.07 (10 - 30) | 0.695 |
slof_relationship | 214 | 25.14 ± 5.75 (9 - 35) | 24.64 ± 5.85 (9 - 35) | 25.64 ± 5.64 (11 - 35) | 0.206 |
satisfaction | 214 | 20.21 ± 7.02 (5 - 35) | 19.54 ± 6.87 (5 - 34) | 20.88 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 0.163 |
mhc_emotional | 214 | 10.71 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 10.61 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 10.81 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 0.694 |
mhc_social | 214 | 15.20 ± 5.78 (5 - 30) | 14.97 ± 5.84 (5 - 30) | 15.43 ± 5.75 (5 - 30) | 0.567 |
mhc_psychological | 214 | 21.77 ± 6.67 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.56 (7 - 36) | 21.99 ± 6.81 (6 - 36) | 0.628 |
resilisnce | 214 | 16.56 ± 4.59 (6 - 30) | 16.01 ± 4.28 (6 - 30) | 17.09 ± 4.83 (6 - 30) | 0.084 |
social_provision | 214 | 13.57 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 13.20 ± 2.69 (5 - 20) | 13.94 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 0.051 |
els_value_living | 214 | 16.96 ± 3.08 (5 - 25) | 16.80 ± 3.02 (6 - 24) | 17.12 ± 3.15 (5 - 25) | 0.451 |
els_life_fulfill | 214 | 12.70 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 12.37 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 13.03 ± 3.26 (4 - 20) | 0.140 |
els | 214 | 29.66 ± 5.81 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 5.71 (11 - 44) | 30.15 ± 5.89 (9 - 45) | 0.219 |
social_connect | 214 | 26.59 ± 9.07 (8 - 48) | 26.92 ± 8.89 (8 - 48) | 26.28 ± 9.28 (8 - 48) | 0.608 |
shs_agency | 214 | 14.31 ± 4.96 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.79 (3 - 23) | 14.88 ± 5.09 (3 - 24) | 0.092 |
shs_pathway | 214 | 15.88 ± 4.13 (3 - 24) | 15.42 ± 4.24 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.101 |
shs | 214 | 30.20 ± 8.71 (6 - 48) | 29.15 ± 8.68 (6 - 46) | 31.22 ± 8.66 (7 - 48) | 0.082 |
esteem | 214 | 12.69 ± 1.59 (9 - 20) | 12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.73 ± 1.56 (10 - 20) | 0.712 |
mlq_search | 214 | 14.76 ± 3.48 (3 - 21) | 14.42 ± 3.42 (4 - 21) | 15.09 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 0.161 |
mlq_presence | 214 | 13.38 ± 4.29 (3 - 21) | 13.25 ± 4.09 (3 - 21) | 13.52 ± 4.50 (3 - 21) | 0.643 |
mlq | 214 | 28.14 ± 6.93 (6 - 42) | 27.67 ± 6.65 (7 - 40) | 28.61 ± 7.19 (6 - 42) | 0.322 |
empower | 214 | 19.22 ± 4.38 (6 - 30) | 18.89 ± 4.24 (9 - 30) | 19.55 ± 4.51 (6 - 30) | 0.272 |
ismi_resistance | 214 | 14.34 ± 2.62 (5 - 20) | 14.34 ± 2.36 (6 - 20) | 14.33 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 0.986 |
ismi_discrimation | 213 | 11.70 ± 3.04 (5 - 20) | 11.84 ± 2.92 (5 - 20) | 11.56 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.505 |
Unknown | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
sss_affective | 214 | 10.30 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.21 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 10.39 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.715 |
sss_behavior | 214 | 9.94 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 10.06 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.648 |
sss_cognitive | 214 | 8.63 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 8.49 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 8.77 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 0.587 |
sss | 214 | 28.87 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 28.75 ± 10.19 (9 - 54) | 28.98 ± 10.56 (9 - 54) | 0.873 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.13 | 0.119 | 2.90, 3.36 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.167 | -0.328, 0.327 | 0.998 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.054 | 0.164 | -0.268, 0.376 | 0.743 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.280 | 0.242 | -0.195, 0.754 | 0.250 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.279 | 17.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.257 | 0.393 | -1.03, 0.514 | 0.514 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.136 | 0.328 | -0.778, 0.507 | 0.679 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.838 | 0.485 | -0.112, 1.79 | 0.086 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.533 | 28.5, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.389 | 0.752 | -1.08, 1.86 | 0.606 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.594 | 0.527 | -0.439, 1.63 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.79 | 0.781 | 0.263, 3.33 | 0.023 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.203 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.043 | 0.286 | -0.603, 0.517 | 0.880 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.010 | 0.221 | -0.444, 0.424 | 0.964 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.568 | 0.328 | -0.074, 1.21 | 0.086 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.319 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.332 | 0.450 | -0.550, 1.21 | 0.461 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.153 | 0.334 | -0.502, 0.808 | 0.648 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.854 | 0.495 | -0.116, 1.82 | 0.087 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.281 | 12.5, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.315 | 0.396 | -0.461, 1.09 | 0.427 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.405 | 0.296 | -0.175, 0.984 | 0.174 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.593 | 0.438 | -0.265, 1.45 | 0.178 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.232 | 9.55, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.413 | 0.327 | -1.05, 0.228 | 0.208 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.003 | 0.284 | -0.554, 0.560 | 0.992 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.13 | 0.420 | 0.304, 1.95 | 0.008 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.3 | 0.898 | 28.5, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.102 | 1.266 | -2.58, 2.38 | 0.936 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.38 | 0.774 | -2.89, 0.140 | 0.078 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.45 | 1.148 | -3.70, 0.801 | 0.209 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.460 | 21.4, 23.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.216 | 0.648 | -1.49, 1.05 | 0.739 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.457 | -0.853, 0.940 | 0.924 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.619 | 0.677 | -0.709, 1.95 | 0.363 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.6 | 0.558 | 23.5, 25.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.04 | 0.787 | -0.506, 2.58 | 0.189 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.045 | 0.578 | -1.18, 1.09 | 0.938 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.633 | 0.856 | -1.05, 2.31 | 0.461 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.5 | 0.686 | 18.2, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.35 | 0.968 | -0.548, 3.25 | 0.165 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.585 | 0.656 | -0.700, 1.87 | 0.374 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.29 | 0.972 | -0.614, 3.19 | 0.187 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.365 | 9.90, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.216 | 0.515 | -0.792, 1.23 | 0.675 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.402 | 0.325 | -0.235, 1.04 | 0.219 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.068 | 0.482 | -0.876, 1.01 | 0.888 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.581 | 13.8, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.473 | 0.820 | -1.13, 2.08 | 0.564 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.721 | 0.575 | -0.407, 1.85 | 0.213 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.305 | 0.852 | -1.37, 1.98 | 0.721 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 0.667 | 20.2, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.491 | 0.941 | -1.35, 2.34 | 0.602 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.956 | 0.640 | -0.298, 2.21 | 0.138 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.101 | 0.948 | -1.76, 1.96 | 0.915 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.435 | 15.2, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.613 | -0.148, 2.26 | 0.087 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.590 | 0.472 | -0.334, 1.51 | 0.213 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.19 | 0.698 | -0.175, 2.56 | 0.090 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.276 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.738 | 0.389 | -0.024, 1.50 | 0.059 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.206 | 0.294 | -0.782, 0.370 | 0.484 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.510 | 0.435 | -0.342, 1.36 | 0.243 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.306 | 16.2, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.334 | 0.432 | -0.512, 1.18 | 0.440 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.258 | 0.330 | -0.389, 0.905 | 0.436 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.629 | 0.489 | -0.329, 1.59 | 0.201 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.314 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.668 | 0.443 | -0.200, 1.54 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.282 | 0.317 | -0.339, 0.903 | 0.375 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.433 | 0.469 | -0.486, 1.35 | 0.357 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.572 | 28.0, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.806 | -0.577, 2.58 | 0.215 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.552 | 0.565 | -0.555, 1.66 | 0.330 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 0.837 | -0.626, 2.65 | 0.228 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 0.891 | 25.2, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.684 | 1.257 | -3.15, 1.78 | 0.587 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.021 | 0.786 | -1.56, 1.52 | 0.979 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.52 | 1.166 | -5.80, -1.23 | 0.003 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.484 | 12.8, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.14 | 0.682 | -0.194, 2.48 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.506 | 0.445 | -0.366, 1.38 | 0.258 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.612 | 0.660 | -0.681, 1.91 | 0.355 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.396 | 14.6, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.938 | 0.559 | -0.157, 2.03 | 0.094 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.612 | 0.397 | -0.166, 1.39 | 0.126 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.198 | 0.588 | -0.955, 1.35 | 0.737 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.841 | 27.5, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.08 | 1.186 | -0.243, 4.41 | 0.081 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.11 | 0.785 | -0.431, 2.64 | 0.161 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.803 | 1.163 | -1.48, 3.08 | 0.491 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.150 | 12.4, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.068 | 0.212 | -0.347, 0.483 | 0.748 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.070 | 0.206 | -0.473, 0.334 | 0.736 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.091 | 0.304 | -0.504, 0.687 | 0.764 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.335 | 13.8, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.708 | 0.472 | -0.217, 1.63 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.780 | 0.412 | -0.027, 1.59 | 0.060 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.755 | 0.608 | -1.95, 0.437 | 0.217 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.412 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.305 | 0.581 | -0.834, 1.44 | 0.600 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.796 | 0.470 | -0.125, 1.72 | 0.093 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.033 | 0.696 | -1.33, 1.40 | 0.962 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.672 | 26.4, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.947 | -0.843, 2.87 | 0.286 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.58 | 0.799 | 0.013, 3.15 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.712 | 1.181 | -3.03, 1.60 | 0.547 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.428 | 18.0, 19.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.671 | 0.604 | -0.512, 1.85 | 0.267 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.443 | 0.164, 1.90 | 0.022 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.392 | 0.657 | -1.68, 0.895 | 0.551 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.248 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.023 | 0.349 | -0.662, 0.707 | 0.948 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.338 | 0.301 | -0.252, 0.928 | 0.264 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.543 | 0.445 | -0.329, 1.42 | 0.225 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.299 | 11.3, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.269 | 0.423 | -1.10, 0.560 | 0.526 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.457 | 0.373 | -1.19, 0.275 | 0.223 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.443 | 0.552 | -1.52, 0.638 | 0.423 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.354 | 9.51, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.168 | 0.499 | -0.809, 1.15 | 0.736 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.258 | 0.330 | -0.905, 0.388 | 0.436 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.03 | 0.489 | -1.99, -0.073 | 0.037 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.357 | 9.36, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.250 | 0.504 | -1.24, 0.738 | 0.620 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.388 | 0.341 | -1.06, 0.280 | 0.257 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.407 | 0.505 | -1.40, 0.583 | 0.422 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.49 | 0.356 | 7.79, 9.19 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.253 | 0.501 | -0.730, 1.24 | 0.614 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.299 | 0.360 | -1.01, 0.407 | 0.408 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.807 | 0.533 | -1.85, 0.238 | 0.133 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.8 | 1.001 | 26.8, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.169 | 1.412 | -2.60, 2.94 | 0.905 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.933 | 0.879 | -2.66, 0.789 | 0.291 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.13 | 1.303 | -4.68, 0.424 | 0.105 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.13 (95% CI [2.90, 3.36], t(312) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.25e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33], t(312) = -2.54e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -3.50e-04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38], t(312) = 0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.75], t(312) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.05 (95% CI [17.50, 18.59], t(312) = 64.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.51], t(312) = -0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.51], t(312) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.79], t(312) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.57 (95% CI [28.52, 30.61], t(312) = 55.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.86], t(312) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.63], t(312) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.79, 95% CI [0.26, 3.33], t(312) = 2.30, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.05, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.27, 12.07], t(312) = 57.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.52], t(312) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.99e-03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.42], t(312) = -0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = -4.78e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.21], t(312) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.19 (95% CI [16.56, 17.81], t(312) = 53.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.21], t(312) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.81], t(312) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.82], t(312) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.48, 13.58], t(312) = 46.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.09], t(312) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.98], t(312) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.45], t(312) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.55, 10.46], t(312) = 43.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.23], t(312) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.56], t(312) = 9.87e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = 1.17e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [0.30, 1.95], t(312) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.13, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.52, 32.04], t(312) = 33.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(312) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.38, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.14], t(312) = -1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-3.70, 0.80], t(312) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.30 (95% CI [21.40, 23.20], t(312) = 48.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.05], t(312) = -0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.94], t(312) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 9.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.95], t(312) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.64 (95% CI [23.55, 25.74], t(312) = 44.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.58], t(312) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.09], t(312) = -0.08, p = 0.938; Std. beta = -7.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.31], t(312) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [18.19, 20.88], t(312) = 28.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.55, 3.25], t(312) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.87], t(312) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.61, 3.19], t(312) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.90, 11.33], t(312) = 29.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.23], t(312) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.04], t(312) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.01], t(312) = 0.14, p = 0.888; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.83, 16.11], t(312) = 25.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.08], t(312) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.85], t(312) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.98], t(312) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.24, 22.85], t(312) = 32.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.34], t(312) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.21], t(312) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.96], t(312) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.16, 16.86], t(312) = 36.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.26], t(312) = 1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.51], t(312) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.56], t(312) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.66, 13.74], t(312) = 47.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.50], t(312) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-8.28e-03, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.37], t(312) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.36], t(312) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.80 (95% CI [16.20, 17.40], t(312) = 54.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(312) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.91], t(312) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.59], t(312) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.75, 12.98], t(312) = 39.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.54], t(312) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90], t(312) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.35], t(312) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.05, 30.29], t(312) = 51.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.58], t(312) = 1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.66], t(312) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.65], t(312) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.92 (95% CI [25.17, 28.66], t(312) = 30.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.78], t(312) = -0.54, p = 0.586; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.52], t(312) = -0.03, p = 0.979; Std. beta = -2.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.52, 95% CI [-5.80, -1.23], t(312) = -3.02, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.79, 14.68], t(312) = 28.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.48], t(312) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.38], t(312) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.91], t(312) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.42 (95% CI [14.64, 16.19], t(312) = 38.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.03], t(312) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.39], t(312) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.35], t(312) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.15 (95% CI [27.50, 30.80], t(312) = 34.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.41], t(312) = 1.75, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.64], t(312) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.08], t(312) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.36, 12.95], t(312) = 84.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.48], t(312) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.33], t(312) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.69], t(312) = 0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.77, 15.08], t(312) = 43.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.63], t(312) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.59], t(312) = 1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-7.86e-03, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.44], t(312) = -1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.44, 14.05], t(312) = 32.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.44], t(312) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.72], t(312) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.40], t(312) = 0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.67 (95% CI [26.35, 28.99], t(312) = 41.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.87], t(312) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [0.01, 3.15], t(312) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [1.88e-03, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-3.03, 1.60], t(312) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.89 (95% CI [18.05, 19.73], t(312) = 44.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.85], t(312) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.16, 1.90], t(312) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.04, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.89], t(312) = -0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.34 (95% CI [13.85, 14.83], t(312) = 57.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.71], t(312) = 0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 8.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.93], t(312) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.42], t(312) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.25, 12.43], t(311) = 39.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.56], t(311) = -0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.27], t(311) = -1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.64], t(311) = -0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.51, 10.90], t(312) = 28.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.15], t(312) = 0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.39], t(312) = -0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-1.99, -0.07], t(312) = -2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.36, 10.76], t(312) = 28.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.74], t(312) = -0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.28], t(312) = -1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.58], t(312) = -0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.49 (95% CI [7.79, 9.19], t(312) = 23.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.24], t(312) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.41], t(312) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.24], t(312) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.75 (95% CI [26.79, 30.72], t(312) = 28.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.94], t(312) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.79], t(312) = -1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-4.68, 0.42], t(312) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,016.645 | 1,027.931 | -505.322 | 1,010.645 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,018.841 | 1,041.413 | -503.421 | 1,006.841 | 3.804 | 3 | 0.283 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,534.542 | 1,545.828 | -764.271 | 1,528.542 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,536.473 | 1,559.045 | -762.236 | 1,524.473 | 4.069 | 3 | 0.254 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,929.796 | 1,941.083 | -961.898 | 1,923.796 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,916.984 | 1,939.557 | -952.492 | 1,904.984 | 18.812 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,319.692 | 1,330.979 | -656.846 | 1,313.692 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,320.209 | 1,342.781 | -654.104 | 1,308.209 | 5.484 | 3 | 0.140 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,604.575 | 1,615.861 | -799.287 | 1,598.575 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,601.388 | 1,623.960 | -794.694 | 1,589.388 | 9.187 | 3 | 0.027 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,527.817 | 1,539.103 | -760.908 | 1,521.817 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,521.294 | 1,543.866 | -754.647 | 1,509.294 | 12.523 | 3 | 0.006 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,433.571 | 1,444.857 | -713.785 | 1,427.571 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,426.489 | 1,449.061 | -707.244 | 1,414.489 | 13.082 | 3 | 0.004 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,229.748 | 2,241.034 | -1,111.874 | 2,223.748 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,222.038 | 2,244.610 | -1,105.019 | 2,210.038 | 13.710 | 3 | 0.003 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,819.548 | 1,830.834 | -906.774 | 1,813.548 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,823.749 | 1,846.322 | -905.875 | 1,811.749 | 1.798 | 3 | 0.615 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,952.200 | 1,963.486 | -973.100 | 1,946.200 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,954.808 | 1,977.380 | -971.404 | 1,942.808 | 3.392 | 3 | 0.335 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,075.600 | 2,086.886 | -1,034.800 | 2,069.600 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,070.997 | 2,093.570 | -1,029.499 | 2,058.997 | 10.602 | 3 | 0.014 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,653.347 | 1,664.633 | -823.674 | 1,647.347 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,655.872 | 1,678.444 | -821.936 | 1,643.872 | 3.475 | 3 | 0.324 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,970.904 | 1,982.190 | -982.452 | 1,964.904 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,972.278 | 1,994.850 | -980.139 | 1,960.278 | 4.626 | 3 | 0.201 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,052.491 | 2,063.777 | -1,023.245 | 2,046.491 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,053.717 | 2,076.289 | -1,020.858 | 2,041.717 | 4.774 | 3 | 0.189 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,816.852 | 1,828.138 | -905.426 | 1,810.852 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,804.627 | 1,827.200 | -896.314 | 1,792.627 | 18.225 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,512.592 | 1,523.879 | -753.296 | 1,506.592 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,511.719 | 1,534.291 | -749.860 | 1,499.719 | 6.873 | 3 | 0.076 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,582.570 | 1,593.856 | -788.285 | 1,576.570 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,580.576 | 1,603.149 | -784.288 | 1,568.576 | 7.994 | 3 | 0.046 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,586.081 | 1,597.367 | -790.041 | 1,580.081 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,583.845 | 1,606.417 | -785.922 | 1,571.845 | 8.236 | 3 | 0.041 |
els | null | 3 | 1,965.013 | 1,976.299 | -979.506 | 1,959.013 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,961.192 | 1,983.765 | -974.596 | 1,949.192 | 9.820 | 3 | 0.020 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,233.672 | 2,244.959 | -1,113.836 | 2,227.672 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,221.898 | 2,244.470 | -1,104.949 | 2,209.898 | 17.774 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,845.376 | 1,856.663 | -919.688 | 1,839.376 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,841.254 | 1,863.827 | -914.627 | 1,829.254 | 10.122 | 3 | 0.018 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,733.530 | 1,744.816 | -863.765 | 1,727.530 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,730.525 | 1,753.098 | -859.263 | 1,718.525 | 9.005 | 3 | 0.029 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,200.297 | 2,211.583 | -1,097.149 | 2,194.297 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,195.699 | 2,218.271 | -1,091.849 | 2,183.699 | 10.599 | 3 | 0.014 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,162.293 | 1,173.579 | -578.146 | 1,156.293 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,167.920 | 1,190.492 | -577.960 | 1,155.920 | 0.373 | 3 | 0.946 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,659.130 | 1,670.416 | -826.565 | 1,653.130 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,660.341 | 1,682.914 | -824.171 | 1,648.341 | 4.788 | 3 | 0.188 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,779.258 | 1,790.544 | -886.629 | 1,773.258 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,779.543 | 1,802.115 | -883.771 | 1,767.543 | 5.715 | 3 | 0.126 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,097.287 | 2,108.573 | -1,045.644 | 2,091.287 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,097.673 | 2,120.246 | -1,042.837 | 2,085.673 | 5.614 | 3 | 0.132 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,788.013 | 1,799.300 | -891.007 | 1,782.013 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,786.127 | 1,808.699 | -887.063 | 1,774.127 | 7.887 | 3 | 0.048 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,469.525 | 1,480.811 | -731.762 | 1,463.525 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,466.860 | 1,489.433 | -727.430 | 1,454.860 | 8.664 | 3 | 0.034 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,587.396 | 1,598.672 | -790.698 | 1,581.396 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,586.144 | 1,608.697 | -787.072 | 1,574.144 | 7.252 | 3 | 0.064 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,652.065 | 1,663.351 | -823.032 | 1,646.065 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,644.890 | 1,667.463 | -816.445 | 1,632.890 | 13.174 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,655.759 | 1,667.045 | -824.879 | 1,649.759 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,655.446 | 1,678.018 | -821.723 | 1,643.446 | 6.312 | 3 | 0.097 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,666.433 | 1,677.720 | -830.217 | 1,660.433 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,663.816 | 1,686.388 | -825.908 | 1,651.816 | 8.618 | 3 | 0.035 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,300.045 | 2,311.331 | -1,147.022 | 2,294.045 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,294.850 | 2,317.423 | -1,141.425 | 2,282.850 | 11.194 | 3 | 0.011 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 106 | 3.13 ± 1.22 | 108 | 3.13 ± 1.22 | 0.998 | 0.000 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 57 | 3.19 ± 1.18 | -0.057 | 47 | 3.47 ± 1.17 | -0.353 | 0.228 | -0.295 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 106 | 18.05 ± 2.87 | 108 | 17.79 ± 2.88 | 0.514 | 0.140 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 57 | 17.91 ± 2.64 | 0.074 | 47 | 18.49 ± 2.58 | -0.382 | 0.259 | -0.316 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 106 | 29.57 ± 5.49 | 108 | 29.95 ± 5.51 | 0.606 | -0.134 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 57 | 30.16 ± 4.79 | -0.204 | 47 | 32.34 ± 4.63 | -0.821 | 0.019 | -0.750 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 106 | 11.67 ± 2.09 | 108 | 11.63 ± 2.09 | 0.880 | 0.035 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 57 | 11.66 ± 1.87 | 0.008 | 47 | 12.18 ± 1.82 | -0.453 | 0.150 | -0.426 |
ras_goal | 1st | 106 | 17.19 ± 3.29 | 108 | 17.52 ± 3.30 | 0.461 | -0.179 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 57 | 17.34 ± 2.92 | -0.082 | 47 | 18.53 ± 2.83 | -0.543 | 0.037 | -0.640 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 106 | 13.03 ± 2.89 | 108 | 13.34 ± 2.90 | 0.427 | -0.192 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 57 | 13.43 ± 2.57 | -0.246 | 47 | 14.34 ± 2.50 | -0.608 | 0.069 | -0.553 |
ras_domination | 1st | 106 | 10.01 ± 2.39 | 108 | 9.60 ± 2.40 | 0.208 | 0.258 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 57 | 10.01 ± 2.22 | -0.002 | 47 | 10.73 ± 2.18 | -0.705 | 0.101 | -0.445 |
symptom | 1st | 106 | 30.28 ± 9.24 | 108 | 30.18 ± 9.28 | 0.936 | 0.024 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 57 | 28.91 ± 7.80 | 0.325 | 47 | 27.35 ± 7.46 | 0.667 | 0.302 | 0.366 |
slof_work | 1st | 106 | 22.30 ± 4.73 | 108 | 22.09 ± 4.75 | 0.739 | 0.086 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 57 | 22.35 ± 4.14 | -0.017 | 47 | 22.75 ± 4.00 | -0.262 | 0.616 | -0.159 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 106 | 24.64 ± 5.74 | 108 | 25.68 ± 5.77 | 0.189 | -0.323 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 57 | 24.60 ± 5.08 | 0.014 | 47 | 26.27 ± 4.93 | -0.183 | 0.091 | -0.521 |
satisfaction | 1st | 106 | 19.54 ± 7.06 | 108 | 20.89 ± 7.09 | 0.165 | -0.374 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 57 | 20.12 ± 6.12 | -0.162 | 47 | 22.76 ± 5.89 | -0.519 | 0.026 | -0.731 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 106 | 10.61 ± 3.76 | 108 | 10.83 ± 3.77 | 0.675 | -0.121 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 57 | 11.01 ± 3.20 | -0.225 | 47 | 11.30 ± 3.06 | -0.264 | 0.644 | -0.160 |
mhc_social | 1st | 106 | 14.97 ± 5.99 | 108 | 15.44 ± 6.01 | 0.564 | -0.149 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 57 | 15.69 ± 5.23 | -0.227 | 47 | 16.47 ± 5.05 | -0.323 | 0.442 | -0.245 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 106 | 21.55 ± 6.87 | 108 | 22.04 ± 6.90 | 0.602 | -0.139 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 57 | 22.50 ± 5.95 | -0.271 | 47 | 23.10 ± 5.73 | -0.300 | 0.607 | -0.168 |
resilisnce | 1st | 106 | 16.01 ± 4.48 | 108 | 17.06 ± 4.49 | 0.087 | -0.402 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 57 | 16.60 ± 4.01 | -0.225 | 47 | 18.85 ± 3.91 | -0.679 | 0.004 | -0.856 |
social_provision | 1st | 106 | 13.20 ± 2.84 | 108 | 13.94 ± 2.85 | 0.059 | -0.452 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 57 | 12.99 ± 2.53 | 0.126 | 47 | 14.24 ± 2.46 | -0.186 | 0.012 | -0.765 |
els_value_living | 1st | 106 | 16.80 ± 3.15 | 108 | 17.14 ± 3.17 | 0.440 | -0.182 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 57 | 17.06 ± 2.82 | -0.141 | 47 | 18.02 ± 2.74 | -0.483 | 0.080 | -0.525 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 106 | 12.37 ± 3.23 | 108 | 13.04 ± 3.24 | 0.133 | -0.381 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 57 | 12.65 ± 2.84 | -0.161 | 47 | 13.75 ± 2.75 | -0.408 | 0.046 | -0.629 |
els | 1st | 106 | 29.17 ± 5.89 | 108 | 30.17 ± 5.91 | 0.215 | -0.322 | ||
els | 2nd | 57 | 29.72 ± 5.14 | -0.177 | 47 | 31.74 ± 4.96 | -0.502 | 0.043 | -0.647 |
social_connect | 1st | 106 | 26.92 ± 9.18 | 108 | 26.23 ± 9.21 | 0.587 | 0.159 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 57 | 26.89 ± 7.79 | 0.005 | 47 | 22.69 ± 7.46 | 0.822 | 0.005 | 0.976 |
shs_agency | 1st | 106 | 13.74 ± 4.98 | 108 | 14.88 ± 5.00 | 0.095 | -0.467 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 57 | 14.24 ± 4.27 | -0.207 | 47 | 16.00 ± 4.10 | -0.457 | 0.034 | -0.718 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 106 | 15.42 ± 4.08 | 108 | 16.35 ± 4.09 | 0.094 | -0.427 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 57 | 16.03 ± 3.57 | -0.279 | 47 | 17.16 ± 3.46 | -0.369 | 0.102 | -0.518 |
shs | 1st | 106 | 29.15 ± 8.66 | 108 | 31.23 ± 8.69 | 0.081 | -0.482 | ||
shs | 2nd | 57 | 30.26 ± 7.45 | -0.257 | 47 | 33.14 ± 7.16 | -0.443 | 0.046 | -0.668 |
esteem | 1st | 106 | 12.65 ± 1.55 | 108 | 12.72 ± 1.55 | 0.748 | -0.058 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 57 | 12.58 ± 1.49 | 0.059 | 47 | 12.74 ± 1.48 | -0.018 | 0.585 | -0.135 |
mlq_search | 1st | 106 | 14.42 ± 3.45 | 108 | 15.13 ± 3.46 | 0.135 | -0.305 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 57 | 15.20 ± 3.21 | -0.336 | 47 | 15.16 ± 3.15 | -0.011 | 0.940 | 0.020 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 106 | 13.25 ± 4.24 | 108 | 13.55 ± 4.26 | 0.600 | -0.116 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 57 | 14.04 ± 3.86 | -0.303 | 47 | 14.38 ± 3.77 | -0.315 | 0.653 | -0.129 |
mlq | 1st | 106 | 27.67 ± 6.92 | 108 | 28.68 ± 6.94 | 0.286 | -0.226 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 57 | 29.25 ± 6.37 | -0.352 | 47 | 29.55 ± 6.25 | -0.193 | 0.809 | -0.067 |
empower | 1st | 106 | 18.89 ± 4.41 | 108 | 19.56 ± 4.42 | 0.267 | -0.273 | ||
empower | 2nd | 57 | 19.92 ± 3.90 | -0.420 | 47 | 20.20 ± 3.78 | -0.261 | 0.712 | -0.114 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 106 | 14.34 ± 2.55 | 108 | 14.36 ± 2.56 | 0.948 | -0.013 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 57 | 14.68 ± 2.37 | -0.199 | 47 | 15.24 ± 2.32 | -0.519 | 0.222 | -0.333 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 106 | 11.84 ± 3.08 | 107 | 11.57 ± 3.09 | 0.526 | 0.127 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 57 | 11.38 ± 2.88 | 0.217 | 47 | 10.67 ± 2.84 | 0.426 | 0.207 | 0.337 |
sss_affective | 1st | 106 | 10.21 ± 3.64 | 108 | 10.38 ± 3.66 | 0.736 | -0.093 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 57 | 9.95 ± 3.13 | 0.142 | 47 | 9.09 ± 3.01 | 0.711 | 0.154 | 0.476 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 106 | 10.06 ± 3.68 | 108 | 9.81 ± 3.69 | 0.620 | 0.133 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 57 | 9.67 ± 3.18 | 0.207 | 47 | 9.01 ± 3.07 | 0.424 | 0.286 | 0.350 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 106 | 8.49 ± 3.66 | 108 | 8.74 ± 3.67 | 0.614 | -0.127 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 57 | 8.19 ± 3.22 | 0.150 | 47 | 7.64 ± 3.11 | 0.556 | 0.374 | 0.278 |
sss | 1st | 106 | 28.75 ± 10.31 | 108 | 28.92 ± 10.35 | 0.905 | -0.035 | ||
sss | 2nd | 57 | 27.82 ± 8.74 | 0.194 | 47 | 25.86 ± 8.36 | 0.636 | 0.244 | 0.407 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(284.81) = -0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.33)
2st
t(308.00) = 1.21, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.73)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(260.31) = -0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.52)
2st
t(310.00) = 1.13, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.59)
ras_confidence
1st
t(243.48) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.87)
2st
t(313.87) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.36 to 4.01)
ras_willingness
1st
t(252.26) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.52)
2st
t(312.03) = 1.44, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.24)
ras_goal
1st
t(248.24) = 0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.22)
2st
t(313.03) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.07 to 2.30)
ras_reliance
1st
t(248.71) = 0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)
2st
t(312.92) = 1.82, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.89)
ras_domination
1st
t(265.57) = -1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.23)
2st
t(308.95) = 1.65, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.57)
symptom
1st
t(234.61) = -0.08, p = 0.936, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.39)
2st
t(312.30) = -1.03, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.50 to 1.40)
slof_work
1st
t(243.93) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.06)
2st
t(313.82) = 0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.98)
slof_relationship
1st
t(247.33) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.59)
2st
t(313.23) = 1.69, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.27 to 3.61)
satisfaction
1st
t(240.93) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.26)
2st
t(314.00) = 2.23, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.32 to 4.96)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(236.42) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.23)
2st
t(313.18) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.50)
mhc_social
1st
t(243.53) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.09)
2st
t(313.87) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.77)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(241.19) = 0.52, p = 0.602, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.34)
2st
t(314.00) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.85)
resilisnce
1st
t(251.48) = 1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.26)
2st
t(312.23) = 2.88, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (0.71 to 3.78)
social_provision
1st
t(249.81) = 1.90, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.50)
2st
t(312.66) = 2.54, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.28 to 2.22)
els_value_living
1st
t(250.88) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.19)
2st
t(312.39) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.04)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(245.08) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.54)
2st
t(313.66) = 2.00, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.18)
els
1st
t(243.41) = 1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.59)
2st
t(313.88) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.97)
social_connect
1st
t(235.85) = -0.54, p = 0.587, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.16 to 1.79)
2st
t(312.95) = -2.80, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-7.15 to -1.25)
shs_agency
1st
t(238.44) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.49)
2st
t(313.75) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.37)
shs_pathway
1st
t(244.53) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.04)
2st
t(313.74) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.50)
shs
1st
t(239.34) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.25 to 4.42)
2st
t(313.89) = 2.01, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.71)
esteem
1st
t(282.92) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.48)
2st
t(307.89) = 0.55, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.73)
mlq_search
1st
t(266.17) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.64)
2st
t(308.85) = -0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.19)
mlq_presence
1st
t(256.85) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.45)
2st
t(310.83) = 0.45, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.82)
mlq
1st
t(261.81) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.88)
2st
t(309.67) = 0.24, p = 0.809, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.75)
empower
1st
t(247.25) = 1.11, p = 0.267, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.86)
2st
t(313.25) = 0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.77)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(264.59) = 0.06, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.71)
2st
t(309.12) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.47)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(267.14) = -0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.56)
2st
t(307.91) = -1.26, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.40)
sss_affective
1st
t(239.30) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.15)
2st
t(313.89) = -1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.33)
sss_behavior
1st
t(240.83) = -0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.74)
2st
t(314.00) = -1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.55)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(245.38) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.24)
2st
t(313.61) = -0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.67)
sss
1st
t(235.60) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.95)
2st
t(312.83) = -1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.27 to 1.35)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(153.25) = 1.87, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.69)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(133.71) = 1.96, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.41)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(122.41) = 4.14, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (1.25 to 3.53)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(128.16) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.04)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(125.49) = 2.75, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.28 to 1.73)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(125.80) = 3.08, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.64)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(137.52) = 3.64, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.52 to 1.74)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(116.87) = -3.33, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.51 to -1.14)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(122.70) = 1.32, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.65)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(124.90) = 0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.84)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(120.79) = 2.61, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.30)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(117.97) = 1.32, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.18)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(122.45) = 1.63, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.27)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(120.96) = 1.51, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.44)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(127.64) = 3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.76 to 2.80)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(126.52) = 0.95, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.94)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(127.23) = 2.46, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.60)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(123.44) = 2.06, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.40)
els
1st vs 2st
t(122.36) = 2.53, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.79)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(117.63) = -4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-5.25 to -1.83)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(119.23) = 2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.08)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(123.08) = 1.86, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.67)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(119.79) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.21 to 3.61)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(151.54) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.46)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(137.96) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.91)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(131.29) = 1.61, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.85)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(134.78) = 0.99, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.59)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(124.84) = 1.32, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.60)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(136.79) = 2.68, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.53)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(139.07) = -2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.09)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(119.77) = -3.57, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-2.01 to -0.57)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(120.73) = -2.13, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.06)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(123.63) = -2.81, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.89 to -0.33)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(117.47) = -3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-4.97 to -1.15)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(142.60) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.38)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(127.55) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.51)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(118.67) = 1.12, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.64)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(123.21) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.43)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(121.10) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.82)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(121.35) = 1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.99)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(130.50) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.57)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(114.26) = -1.78, p = 0.157, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.91 to 0.16)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(118.90) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.95)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(120.64) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.10)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(117.39) = 0.89, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.89)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(115.14) = 1.23, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.05)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(118.70) = 1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.86)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(117.52) = 1.49, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.22)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(122.79) = 1.25, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.53)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(121.92) = -0.70, p = 0.970, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.38)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(122.48) = 0.78, p = 0.873, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.91)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(119.49) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)
els
1st vs 2st
t(118.64) = 0.98, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.67)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(114.86) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.54)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(116.14) = 1.14, p = 0.517, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.39)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(119.20) = 1.54, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.40)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(116.59) = 1.41, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.66)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(141.29) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.34)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(130.85) = 1.89, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.60)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(125.66) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.73)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(128.38) = 1.97, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.17)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(120.59) = 2.32, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.91)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(129.94) = 1.12, p = 0.530, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.94)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(131.95) = -1.22, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.28)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(116.57) = -0.78, p = 0.873, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.40)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(117.34) = -1.14, p = 0.516, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.29)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(119.64) = -0.83, p = 0.817, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.41)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(114.74) = -1.06, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.81)